Chapter published in:
Studies in Turkish as a Heritage Language
Edited by Fatih Bayram
[Studies in Bilingualism 60] 2020
► pp. 105–126

Chapter 6
First language exposure predicts attrition patterns in Turkish heritage speakers’ use of grammatical evidentiality

| | University of Groningen
| University of Groningen | Higher School of Economics University, Moscow
This chapter reports on a preliminary study examining the production of grammatical evidentiality forms in narrative speech samples elicited from heritage language speakers (HLS) of Turkish. Turkish grammatically marks direct and indirect sources of evidence one has for their statement. We explored (1) how Turkish HLS use evidentiality marking as compared to monolingual Turkish speakers, and (2) which factors predict their performances in producing evidentiality. Our findings showed that the HLS made a large number of contextually inappropriate substitutions by using direct evidentials in places where an indirect evidential would be used, and that this pattern is largely predicted by the amount of self-reported exposure to the first (heritage) language in daily life.
Keywords: evidentiality, narrative speech, heritage language speakers, Turkish-Dutch bilingualism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some features of evidentiality in Turkish
  • 3.Relevant studies on Turkish heritage speakers
  • 4.Method
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Procedure
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1General characteristics of utterances and finite verbs
    • 5.2Inflected forms for evidentiality
    • 5.3Determining the predictors of incorrect uses of evidentiality through machine learning
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.60.06ars
References
Aarssen, J.
(2001) Development of temporal relations in narratives by Turkish-Dutch bilingual children. In L. T. Verhoeven & S. Stromqvist (Eds.), Narrative development in a multilingual context. (pp. 209–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y.
(2004) Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aksu-Koç, A.
(1988) The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Development of linguistic forms: Turkish. In R. A. Berman & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. (pp. 329–385). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Albirini, A., Benmamoun, E., & Chakrani, B.
(2013) Gender and number agreement in the oral production of Arabic Heritage speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(01), 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arslan, S., Bastiaanse, R., & Felser, C.
(2015) Looking at the evidence in visual world: Eye-movements reveal how bilingual and monolingual Turkish speakers process grammatical evidentiality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arslan, S., de Kok, D., & Bastiaanse, R.
(2017) Processing grammatical evidentiality and time reference in Turkish heritage and monolingual speakers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(3), 457–472. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Backus, A.
(2004) Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism Language and Cognition, 7(2), 179–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Turkish as an immigrant language in Europe. In T. K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (pp. 770–790). Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Benmamoun, E., Montrul, S., & Polinsky, M.
(2013) Defining an “ideal” heritage speaker: Theoretical and methodological challenges Reply to peer commentaries. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(3–4), 259–294.Google Scholar
Bezcioglu-Goktolga, I., & Yagmur, K.
(2018) Home language policy of second-generation Turkish families in the Netherlands. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 39(1), 44–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P.
(2002) SMOTE: Synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 16, 321–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daller, H., Van Hout, R., & Treffers-Daller, J.
(2003) Lexical richness in the spontaneous speech of bilinguals. Applied Linguistics, 24(2), 197–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doğruöz, A. S., & Backus, A.
(2009) Innovative constructions in Dutch Turkish: An assessment of ongoing contact-induced change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12(1), 41–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Extra, G., & Yağmur, K.
(2010) Language proficiency and socio-cultural orientation of Turkish and Moroccan youngsters in the Netherlands. Language and Education, 24(2), 117–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodglass, H., & Kaplan, E.
(1972) The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.Google Scholar
Gürel, A., & Yilmaz, G.
(2011) Restructuring in the L1 Turkish grammar: Effects of L2 English and L2 Dutch. Language, Interaction and Acquisition/Langage, Interaction et Acquisition, 2(2), 221–250. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jia, R., & Paradis, J.
(2015) The use of referring expressions in narratives by Mandarin heritage language children and the role of language environment factors in predicting individual differences. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18(04), 737–752. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johanson, L.
(2000) Turkic indirectives. In L. Johanson & B. Utas (Eds.), Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages (pp. 61–88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karakoç, B.
(2007) Connectivity by means of finite elements in monolingual and bilingual Turkish discourse. In J. Rehbein, C. Hohenstein, & L. Pietsch (Eds.), Connectivity in grammar and discourse (pp. 199–227). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karayayla, T.
(2020) Effects of first language attrition on heritage language input and ultimate attainment: Two generations of Turkish immigrants in the UK. In B. Brehmer, J. Treffers-Daller, & D. Berndt (Eds.), Lost in transmission: The role of attrition and input in heritage language development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, G., & Chhabra, A.
(2014) Improved J48 classification algorithm for the prediction of diabetes. International Journal of Computer Applications, 98(22), 13–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J.
(2016) Terminology matters! Why difference is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 564–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köpke, B., Schmid, M., Keijzer, M., & Dostert, S.
(2007) Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D. D., & Richards, B. J.
(1997) A new measure of lexical diversity. British Studies in Applied Linguistics, 12, 58–71.Google Scholar
Maviş, İ., Tunçer, M., & Gagarina, N.
(2016) Macrostructure components in narrations of Turkish–German bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(1), 69–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S. A.
(2002) Incomplete acquisition and attrition of Spanish tense/aspect distinctions in adults bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and cognition, 5(1), 39–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Knowledge of tense-aspect and mood in Spanish heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 239–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The acquisition of heritage languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. A., & Sánchez-Walker, N.
(2013) Differential object marking in child and adult Spanish heritage speakers. Language Acquisition, 20(2), 109–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ozturk, O., & Papafragou, A.
(2016) The acquisition of evidentiality and source monitoring. Language Learning and Development, 12(2), 199–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual y Cabo, D., & Rothman, J.
(2012) The (il) logical problem of heritage speaker bilingualism and incomplete acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 450–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Patil, T. R., & Sherekar, S.
(2013) Performance analysis of Naive Bayes and J48 classification algorithm for data classification. International journal of computer science and applications, 6(2), 256–261.Google Scholar
Pfaff, C. W.
(1991) Turkish in contact with German: Language maintenance and loss among immigrant children in Berlin (West). International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 90(1), 97–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Turkish language development in Germany. In G. Extra & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe (pp. 119–146). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M.
(2006) Incomplete acquisition: American Russian. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 14(2), 191–262.Google Scholar
(2008) Heritage language narratives. In D. Brinton, O. Kagan, & S. Bauckus (Eds.), Heritage languages: A new field emerging. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2011) Reanalysis in adult heritage language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(2), 305–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, M. T., & Sánchez, L.
(2013) What’s so incomplete about incomplete acquisition? A prolegomenon to modeling heritage language grammars. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(4), 478–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quinlan, R.
(1986) Induction of decision trees. Machine learning, 1(1), 81–106. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Rothman, J.
(2009) Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Bilingualism, 13(2), 155–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, A.
(1993) Turkish language development in the Netherlands. In L. Verhoeven & G. Extra (Eds.), Immigrant languages in Europe (pp. 120–147). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schmid, M.
(2007) The role of L1 use for L1 attrition. In B. Köpke, M. Schmid, M. Keijzer, & S. Dostert (Eds.), Language attrition: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M. S.
(2013) First language attrition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 3(1), 94–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sevinç, Y.
(2016) Language maintenance and shift under pressure: Three generations of the Turkish immigrant community in the Netherlands. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2016(242), 81–117.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I., & Aksu, A. A.
(1982) Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (pp. 185–200). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, L.
(2004) Functional convergence in the tense, evidentiality and aspectual systems of Quechua Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 147–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J.
(2015) Language dominance: The construct, its measurement, and operationalization. In C. Silva-Corvalán & J. Treffers-Daller (Eds.), Language dominance in bilinguals: Issues of measurement and operationalization (pp. 235–265). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., Özsoy, A. S., & Van Hout, R.
(2007) (In)complete acquisition of Turkish among Turkish–German bilinguals in Germany and Turkey: An analysis of complex embeddings in narratives. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 248–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valk, P. O., & Backus, A.
(2013) Syntactic change in an immigrant language: From non-finite to finite subordinate clauses in Turkish. Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics, 4(2), 7–29.Google Scholar